Re: Re: RE: God

To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Re: RE: God
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:13:19 -0600

Greg Schofield wrote:
>
> It could be said that God exists is so far as it
> is a projection of (hu)man (which puts a different
> twist on atheism then the simple contention that
> it does not).

No it doesn't; the claim that god is a human projection _presupposes_
the non-existence of god, the simple contention that it does not." For
unless one first assumes the simple non-existence of god there is no
need to develop an explanation for human conceptions of and belief in
that which is not.

Carrol

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: Re: RE: God
  - From: Greg Schofield

References:
- RE: God
  - From: Devine, James
- Re: RE: God
  - From: Greg Schofield

Prev by Date: Re: RE: God
Next by Date: Re: reply-part 3-end
Previous by thread: Re: RE: God
Next by thread: Re: Re: Re: RE: God
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Thread context:
- Re: Justin's fingers strike gold again was Re: God, (continued)
  - God, Charles Brown Tue 26 Feb 2002, 17:17 GMT
  - RE: God, Devine, James Tue 26 Feb 2002, 17:39 GMT
    - Re: RE: God, Greg Schofield Wed 27 Feb 2002, 00:20 GMT
      
      Re: Re: RE: God, Carrol Cox Wed 27 Feb 2002, 01:17 GMT
      
      Re: Re: Re: RE: God, Greg Schofield Wed 27 Feb 2002, 09:47 GMT
  - RE: God, Forstater, Mathew Tue 26 Feb 2002, 19:04 GMT
    - Re: RE: God, Doug Henwood Tue 26 Feb 2002, 19:16 GMT
  - RE: RE: God, michael pugliese Tue 26 Feb 2002, 19:27 GMT

[ Other Periods | Other mailing lists | Search ]